NASHVILLE (BP) — In June, the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear the case of United States v. Skrmetti, a lawsuit joined by the Biden administration against a Tennessee law prohibiting all medical procedures intended to “affirm” a gender inconsistent with a minor’s biological sex. The law provides necessary protection to children under the age of 18 from harmful and dangerous “gender transition” medical procedures like hormone therapy, puberty blockers and surgery that carry devastating, lifelong consequences. 

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) plans to actively engage this historic case at the Supreme Court by filing an amicus brief outlining why the Tennessee law, and others like it, must be ruled constitutional.

What is this “gender transition” case about?

The Tennessee State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1) on March 1, 2023. The law prevents healthcare providers from prescribing medications or performing procedures on minors to “transition” to an identity opposite of their biological sex. The bill prohibits any procedure for the purpose of:

• “Enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex;
• Treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

Additionally, the new law also required doctors to cease all current gender procedures on minors by March 31, 2024.

How did opponents respond to this “gender transition” law? 

In response to S.B. 1: 

• three transgender individuals, their parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly filed a lawsuit alleging Tennessee violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 
• The Biden administration’s Department of Justice joined the suit arguing the U.S. has a vested national interest in preventing the law from taking effect. 

The plaintiffs allege that S.B. 1 intentionally targets transgender individuals and is, therefore, sex-based discrimination that also interferes with parents’ ability to make medical decisions for their children.

How did this “gender transition” case make it to the Supreme Court?

Originally filed as L.W. v. Skrmetti, the Tennessee District Court granted the plaintiffs’ request to block the law from taking effect prior to a decision from the court on its constitutionality. The injunction was only implemented against the hormone therapy and puberty-blocker aspects of the law but allowed the ban on surgical transitions for minors to remain in effect. 

However, Tennessee appealed the injunction to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges ruled that the law is not discriminatory on the basis of sex and permitted the full law to take effect. The appeals court combined Skrmetti with a similar case regarding a Kentucky law, which they also found to be constitutional. 

Currently, 25 states have laws in effect (New Hampshire will be the 26th state on Jan. 1, 2025) that prohibit doctors from performing these dangerous surgeries and procedures on minors. However, many of these laws are currently undergoing litigation, and the outcome of Skrmetti will determine if they can remain in place. Considering the current national landscape and the importance of this issue, the Supreme Court granted the DOJ’s request to take up the case. 

The Supreme Court’s decision will have a monumental impact on the safety and security of children from a harmful gender ideology that imposes lifelong, devastating consequences on their well-being.

What will shape the decision in this “gender transition” case? 

This case will likely be shaped by the Supreme Court’s problematic ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, where the court ruled that the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Skrmetti presents a new opportunity for the court to clarify the extent of the Bostock ruling or limit its scope. The case will also likely delve into important questions surrounding parental rights.

When are oral arguments for this “gender transition” case? 

The Supreme Court’s next term begins in October. The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral arguments in Skrmetti.

Why does this “gender transition” case matter to Southern Baptists?

Southern Baptists desire to see children protected from a culture that has bought into a sexual revolution intending to separate them from God’s good design for their lives. Southern Baptists have explicitly expressed their condemnation of the “harmful and often irreversible ‘gender transition’ experiments on vulnerable minors and young adults” (2023 resolution, On Opposing “Gender Transitions”). Furthermore, Southern Baptists called upon legislatures to enact laws, like those in Tennessee and Kentucky, to protect children from exploitation and safeguard parental rights.The ERLC has been advocating against disastrous gender ideology legislation across multiple fronts in Congress, federal rule making and the courts. As the Supreme Court begins to consider this case, the ERLC will monitor and advocate for these laws to be upheld to best ensure that vulnerable children are protected and God’s good design for gender can flourish.